A DRAFT statement on our build systems for Samba 4.0

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 09:27:08AM -0400, simo wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 15:20 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: 
> > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 09:12:13AM -0400, simo wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 17:43 +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm trying to make it clear in our user's minds that we have moved
> > > > past
> > > > > having a 'file server' build and an 'AD build', and that for almost
> > > > all
> > > > > users, the top level build is the one they want.
> > > 
> > > Do we have a toplevel waf switch to build only the file server (+nmbd
> > > +optionally winbindd) and not the whole AD DC stuff ?
> > That's an interesting idea.
> > 
> > At the moment we have (more than) enough different ways of building
> > Samba that we need to support. If we add a new one, can we maybe
> > consider dropping another?
> 
> I do not see this as a new way of building, just building some parts
> optionally.
> Just like in the autoconf build we would build ADS support if you missed
> or explicitly disabled building with ldap and/or krb5 libs.

Presumably we would want to make sure that this way of building
doesn't break - and does not in fact accidentally require kerberos libraries.
In order to do that, we'd have to add it as yet another autobuild
target.

I suspect an option like this would be fragile enough to accidentally
break if we don't have tests for it.

Cheers,

Jelmer